Route Knowledge

[fairysdad]

I hesitate to post this...

I shall start by saying that by asking this question, I am by no means lessening the job of a Driver, nor the work you do, or anything like that. This is a genuine question about something I have been wondering about recently having just had a job interview as a bus driver, and through reading some of the threads elsewhere on the site.

* takes deep breath *

Why is route knowledge so important as a train driver? Why do drivers have to know every inch of the tracks they drive? I understand that it is important that a driver knows their route, but there appear to be situations where a driver has had to say 'sorry, I'm not signed for that route' when they are asked to take a train into Platform 8 rather than one of 1-7 which they are signed for (this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head example). Taking something like the Stourbridge branch. Before the Parrys on the route, it ran with, I understand, 150s. Surely anybody who has the knowledge of driving a 150 (say an Exeter driver) could have driven the Stourbridge branch without necessarily having to 'sign' it. Or surely the driver of my hypothetical train above could take the train into Platform 8 even though they haven't signed it.

Like I say, please don't think I'm lessening the fact that Drivers have route knowledge, I'm just geuninely curious why the Railway industry seems to make it such a big thing when bus drivers don't have to know their routes exactly the same (I'm sure we've all been on buses where the driver doesn't know where they're going!).

 

[the sniper]

We had this thread recently that derailed and pretty much ended up covering this subject, might be worth reading it from this page onwards: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109293&page=3

 

[yorkie]

... I'm just geuninely curious why the Railway industry seems to make it such a big thing when bus drivers don't have to know their routes exactly the same (I'm sure we've all been on buses where the driver doesn't know where they're going!).

The risks are bigger on the railway, but the media finds a rail incident totally unacceptable, while a road incident is simply a common occurrence.

Standards are, in comparison, extremely and worryingly lax in the bus industry, and I think questions should be asked in the opposite direction (best done as a new thread in the bus section) as to why bus drivers don't have to have any route knowledge.

 

[rdeez]

We had this thread recently that derailed and pretty much ended up covering this subject, might be worth reading it from this page onwards: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109293&page=3

This post in particular seems to cover the main reasons

 

[notadriver]

I hesitate to post this...

I shall start by saying that by asking this question, I am by no means lessening the job of a Driver, nor the work you do, or anything like that. This is a genuine question about something I have been wondering about recently having just had a job interview as a bus driver, and through reading some of the threads elsewhere on the site.

* takes deep breath *

Why is route knowledge so important as a train driver? Why do drivers have to know every inch of the tracks they drive? I understand that it is important that a driver knows their route, but there appear to be situations where a driver has had to say 'sorry, I'm not signed for that route' when they are asked to take a train into Platform 8 rather than one of 1-7 which they are signed for (this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head example). Taking something like the Stourbridge branch. Before the Parrys on the route, it ran with, I understand, 150s. Surely anybody who has the knowledge of driving a 150 (say an Exeter driver) could have driven the Stourbridge branch without necessarily having to 'sign' it. Or surely the driver of my hypothetical train above could take the train into Platform 8 even though they haven't signed it.

Like I say, please don't think I'm lessening the fact that Drivers have route knowledge, I'm just geuninely curious why the Railway industry seems to make it such a big thing when bus drivers don't have to know their routes exactly the same (I'm sure we've all been on buses where the driver doesn't know where they're going!).

I'm both a train driver and I drive buses and coaches on a casual basis. Getting lost on the buses or on a coach isn't a big deal. It is on the trains and in one form or another one will cost the operator money in delay minutes attributions.

 

[6Gman]

I think the key difference is that a bus driver can usually drive by line of sight, whereas a train driver needs to know what's behind the bend, beyond the next bridge, two miles hence!

 

[Matt Taylor]

You're bombing along at 90 mph in the dark and you need to know exactly where the crossover is take you from the fast line to the slow line so you can stop at Farnborough, that crossover is limited to 25mph so you need to know exactly where to start braking and exactly what the limit is on the crossover. That's just one example and there are hundreds more just in my route knowledge.

 

[D1009]

I think the big changes are not too far away, with the advent of cab signalling (ETCS) and automatic train operation on the national network. Once the computer tells you what speed to drive at and when, or the train effectively drives itself, the skill requirements of on train staff are going to dramatically change, whether or not the membership of this forum like it.

 

[dk1]

I think the big changes are not too far away, with the advent of cab signalling (ETCS) and automatic train operation on the national network. Once the computer tells you what speed to drive at and when, or the train effectively drives itself, the skill requirements of on train staff are going to dramatically change, whether or not the membership of this forum like it.

Good job the majority of us drivers are members of a very strong union then

 

[arabianights]

I don't understand though why there couldn't be a "failsafe" procedure for driving without route knowledge, say split the line up in to easily defined "zones" with speed limits low enough that one could brake line of sight easily for even the lowest cross over; and even lower limits if AWS sunflower showing.

The point would not be to drive under these procedures normally, but the example given of going into the wrong platform or Stourbridge branch I don't see why such procedures couldn't allow at least some operation rather than none.

Appreciate there could be issues with bay platforms, sidings, level crossingsings and so on, presumably driving by sight and having those briefed could work in majority of circumstances.

 

[Tomnick]

I must admit to being rather perplexed by the thought that a driver might only sign the fast lines and not the slows, or doesn't sign a particular loop, or can't go into certain platforms at a large station. My understanding is that route knowledge covers all possible movements on a given line of route, including all platforms at stations, every possible shunt move and so on. I can understand the need to sign for more complex groups of sidings separately, where they have their own method of working and local instructions, but surely otherwise you sign for the whole lot if you sign for the route? That's certainly the case (for the passenger drivers at least) even on the MML where the slow line goes off on its own alignment around Wymington!

 

[185143]

I think the key difference is that a bus driver can usually drive by line of sight, whereas a train driver needs to know what's behind the bend, beyond the next bridge, two miles hence!

I was on a bus with a trainee driver, who apparently had been told just where the final destination of the bus was. As such, he stopped at every single stop to ask where he was going!

I usually have sympathy on occasions like this, but it made me very late and, better still, its one, straight road! There were no other routes to the destination anyway!

 

[notadriver]

I don't understand though why there couldn't be a "failsafe" procedure for driving without route knowledge, say split the line up in to easily defined "zones" with speed limits low enough that one could brake line of sight easily for even the lowest cross over; and even lower limits if AWS sunflower showing.

The point would not be to drive under these procedures normally, but the example given of going into the wrong platform or Stourbridge branch I don't see why such procedures couldn't allow at least some operation rather than none.

Appreciate there could be issues with bay platforms, sidings, level crossingsings and so on, presumably driving by sight and having those briefed could work in majority of circumstances.

All this is fine in theory but a driver may not have traversed a section of line for many months and it's all fine and well in daylight when you can see but at night you can't see a thing. It's a lot darker than a typical road !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the big changes are not too far away, with the advent of cab signalling (ETCS) and automatic train operation on the national network. Once the computer tells you what speed to drive at and when, or the train effectively drives itself, the skill requirements of on train staff are going to dramatically change, whether or not the membership of this forum like it.

That's at least 30 to 40 years away.

 

[E16 Cyclist]

I don't understand though why there couldn't be a "failsafe" procedure for driving without route knowledge, say split the line up in to easily defined "zones" with speed limits low enough that one could brake line of sight easily for even the lowest cross over; and even lower limits if AWS sunflower showing.

The point would not be to drive under these procedures normally, but the example given of going into the wrong platform or Stourbridge branch I don't see why such procedures couldn't allow at least some operation rather than none.

Appreciate there could be issues with bay platforms, sidings, level crossingsings and so on, presumably driving by sight and having those briefed could work in majority of circumstances.

If you lower speed limits your extend journey times and less trains can run which in the peaks will cause more overcrowding

And you can't brake in line of sight when driving in thick fog or snow, then you are relying on your route knowledge to drive the train safely and punctually. I drive on a line which has ATP which warns you of changes in speed and without route knowledge you'd end up staring at the display rather than actually look where your going

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I don't understand though why there couldn't be a "failsafe" procedure for driving without route knowledge, say split the line up in to easily defined "zones" with speed limits low enough that one could brake line of sight easily for even the lowest cross over; and even lower limits if AWS sunflower showing.

The point would not be to drive under these procedures normally, but the example given of going into the wrong platform or Stourbridge branch I don't see why such procedures couldn't allow at least some operation rather than none.

Appreciate there could be issues with bay platforms, sidings, level crossingsings and so on, presumably driving by sight and having those briefed could work in majority of circumstances.

There is much more to route knowledge than how fast you can go and which stations to stop at. Trains don't stop on a dime like cars do either.

Imagine going on a journey in a 280t vehicle with solid metal wheels, knowing nothing about the route ahead and have no maps (or phones, satnavs, etc) to look at. Imagine having someone who has never driven a similar vehicle in their life, or ever been down that route, trying to guide you, over the phone from 50 miles away, using only a basic, not to scale, line drawing.

Now imagine that at night with no street lights and headlights that illuminate the ground ten feet in front of you.

Imagine what would happen if something went wrong......

I must admit to being rather perplexed by the thought that a driver might only sign the fast lines and not the slows, or doesn't sign a particular loop, or can't go into certain platforms at a large station. My understanding is that route knowledge covers all possible movements on a given line of route, including all platforms at stations, every possible shunt move and so on. I can understand the need to sign for more complex groups of sidings separately, where they have their own method of working and local instructions, but surely otherwise you sign for the whole lot if you sign for the route? That's certainly the case (for the passenger drivers at least) even on the MML where the slow line goes off on its own alignment around Wymington!

It works on the basis of what a driver might normally be expected to use (or not use).

For example, I don't think East Midlands Trains (Mainline) drivers sign Bedford Carriage Sidings because they never go in there (I can think of an occasion where one did and it was an ex-Thameslink driver, but even he was given a route conductor from Bedford station).

When I worked for Thameslink (it might be different now), TL drivers signed the slow lines through Selhurst and Streatham Common because it formed a route to London via Streatham, but they didn't sign the fast lines because there was no way to get from them to Streatham. At the time they only signed platform 4, 5 and 6 at London Bridge because if they went into any of the others they'd be going the wrong way.

 

[455driver]

I must admit to being rather perplexed by the thought that a driver might only sign the fast lines and not the slows, or doesn't sign a particular loop, or can't go into certain platforms at a large station. My understanding is that route knowledge covers all possible movements on a given line of route, including all platforms at stations, every possible shunt move and so on. I can understand the need to sign for more complex groups of sidings separately, where they have their own method of working and local instructions, but surely otherwise you sign for the whole lot if you sign for the route? That's certainly the case (for the passenger drivers at least) even on the MML where the slow line goes off on its own alignment around Wymington!

I only worked trains on the Mainline side of Waterloo but I signed all 20 platforms (even though I very rarely worked into any platform numbered over 13 (probably 4 or 5 of them in total), maybe the case above was simply that the stock wasnt cleared for that platform or the train was over-length!

As for the OPs question, I am too old to go through all that sh*t again so I will leave it to the other staff and exspurts to fight over.

If the OP would be happy to take a 500 tonne train with 800 people on board along a route they dont know then get on with it, I certainly wouldnt even if I had travelled over the route a hundred times as a passenger.

Have a go at a train sim and when you can drive the route smoothly (max step 2 braking, gentle pull away from stations, smooth stop at each signal etc) and keep to time you can sign it, then move onto the next route, keeping yourself up to date on any changes on the first route.
Everyone I have seen on a sim has been effing useless but they still think they can drive the route properly!

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

A PC game train simulator has about as much realism to driving a train as a PC flight simulator has to flying a Mk1 Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.

I turn the heating off frequently to listen to the train when stopping and pulling away for example.

Route knowledge, I used to sign half the UK, (I now sign a minimal amount in comparison)< and to understand why route knowledge is so important, it is THE most important part of train driving.
That sick making, adrenaline rush of the seat cushion being sucked up your sphincter, when making a wrong direction movement in a possession in fog as thick as a guest on the Jeremy Kyle show, when a minor gap in your route knowledge shows itself up is a horrible experience and the consequences to your career and life of a mistake caused by a lack of route knowledge is not one I wish to dwell on in the 21st Century railway environment.

Learn your routes, if you need more time, ask for it, DO NOT sign it unless you are 100% sure of every move and the surname of every lump of ballast

 

[455driver]

.

A PC game train simulator has about as much realism to driving a train as a PC flight simulator has to flying a Mk1 Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.

I turn the heating off frequently to listen to the train when stopping and pulling away for example.

Route knowledge, I used to sign half the UK, (I now sign a minimal amount in comparison)< and to understand why route knowledge is so important, it is THE most important part of train driving.
That sick making, adrenaline rush of the seat cushion being sucked up your sphincter, when making a wrong direction movement in a possession in fog as thick as a guest on the Jeremy Kyle show, when a minor gap in your route knowledge shows itself up is a horrible experience and the consequences to your career and life of a mistake caused by a lack of route knowledge is not one I wish to dwell on in the 21st Century railway environment.

Learn your routes, if you need more time, ask for it, DO NOT sign it unless you are 100% sure of every move and the surname of every lump of ballast

All very true, I was just using the sim as a way of showing (just a bit of) what is required, not to say it is the same thing as driving a train for real.

I know of a bloke who had a go on a TOC simulator running a fictitious route, all he had to do was set off from a station, call at another and then terminate at the 3rd.
The driver with him learnt it roughly in 4 trips, the bloke took 10 and said he could drive it, so the driver drove the route (at night) first with no real issues and then the bloke drove it unaided for the first time, have a guess what happened!
Yep a fail to call and a bit of buffer bashing

 

[Rich McLean]

.

All very true, I was just using the sim as a way of showing (just a bit of) what is required, not to say it is the same thing as driving a train for real.

I know of a bloke who had a go on a TOC simulator running a fictitious route, all he had to do was set off from a station, call at another and then terminate at the 3rd.
The driver with him learnt it roughly in 4 trips, the bloke took 10 and said he could drive it, so the driver drove the route (at night) first with no real issues and then the bloke drove it unaided for the first time, have a guess what happened!
Yep a fail to call and a bit of buffer bashing

Reminds me when I learnt Hereford - Worcester. At the time I was used to mainline work with little gradients. Setting off on the Up from Ledbury towards Ledbury Tunnel (1:80) for the first time took me by surprise. Once you have done it a few times however, you know how much power is required and how to alter that in poor adhesion conditions.

Also different types of traction on the same route can require two completely different driving techniques, breaking points, power application etc. So you may know the route in a 165/166, but a 180 will differ on the same track, as well as HSTs. In many cases, you need to re-learn the route in different traction, in order to learn the different breaking points. Also different types of unit/traction can also have different speed limit differentials

 

[M60lad]

Considering the amount of platform alterations that happen daily at mainline stations does it ever happen that a driver is signaled into a platform that he/she hasn't got route knowledge for as surely the signaller wouldn't know which driver is cleared for what platform

 

[455driver]

Considering the amount of platform alterations that happen daily at mainline stations does it ever happen that a driver is signaled into a platform that he/she hasn't got route knowledge for as surely the signaller wouldn't know which driver is cleared for what platform

I have never heard of drivers only signing certain platforms at a station, large or small.

If the driver signs the route towards the platform then it is ridiculous if they didnt sign the platform as well.

 

[GB]

I don't understand though why there couldn't be a "failsafe" procedure for driving without route knowledge, .

There is a fail safe procedure, you simply do not do what your not qualified to do.

 

[455driver]

There is a fail safe procedure, you simply do not do what your not qualified to do.

Do you get as sick as I do about going over the same cr+p time after time?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I have never heard of drivers only signing certain platforms at a station, large or small.....

Thameslink drivers at London Bridge, Brighton, Wimbledon and Bedford? Southeastern drivers at London Bridge and London Victoria? I'd wager that Southern and London Overground drivers don't sign all of Clapham Junction either.

 

[muz379]

Thameslink drivers at London Bridge, Brighton, Wimbledon and Bedford? Southeastern drivers at London Bridge and London Victoria? I'd wager that Southern and London Overground drivers don't sign all of Clapham Junction either.

Is that because they only sign certain lines on the approach to these stations ?



Personally I was told as a guard when I passed out that "you dont work a train over any route you dont sign" and ive stuck by that rule . I suspect some drivers have also been told something simillar and stick by it because at the end of the day if you dont and something goes wrong you have a heck of a lot to answer for .

 

[WCMLaddict]

I have never heard of drivers only signing certain platforms at a station, large or small.

If the driver signs the route towards the platform then it is ridiculous if they didnt sign the platform as well.

Victoria drivers mostly sign only platforms 13&14 at Piccadilly.

These questions come up simply because some people don't understand that driving trains is NOT like driving buses or flying planes. The whole assumption that buses, planes and trains are comparable because they carry large amounts of people is really annoying....

 

[GB]

Victoria drivers mostly sign only platforms 13&14 at Piccadilly.

These questions come up simply because some people don't understand that driving trains is NOT like driving buses or flying planes.

I'm sure someone will correct me but isn't it the case that commercial pilots cannot fly approaches or airports they don't know?

 

[WCMLaddict]

Most likely but the point is that they are not the same and should not be compared in the way OP compared.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Is that because they only sign certain lines on the approach to these stations ?....

I guess you could look at it that way. The platforms they don't sign are ones they'll never use.

 

[GB]

Most likely but the point is that they are not the same and should not be compared in the way OP compared.

Indeed you are right.